Fair enough, however I find politians pushing religious agenda......well let's just say I find it disturbing, and the more I learn about past and present America, the mire I realize how much influence people I would regard as certifiable have had and continue to have here.

The language and tone may be biased, but she's a crazy fuck, there is no doubting that.

I'll tell you one thing I don't want to fucking hear out of any person of influence's mouth, is that they are on some kind of mission from their chosen god.

Not unless it's Jake or Elwood.

Last edited by JCoz on Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There will be plenty of chances for us to judge ALL the Republican presidential candidates during the numerous debates scheduled between now and next January. We'll be able to hear what they have to say and see how they respond to pointed questions without having to try and discern them through the distorted, uber-liberal "Rolling Stone" lens. It's not only advisable, but as Americans it's our duty.

There was unanimous agreement in the media -- even at MSNBC -- that Bachmann had the best performance of all seven Rep candidates at the most recent debate. Which means that she and Mitt Romney (the two current leaders for the nomination) will be coming under the most scurrilous media attacks in the coming weeks and months. I must've read at least a dozen media stories about Bachmann's Lexington/New Concord, N.H. gaffe -- which pales in comparison to the verbal mistakes that our current president and vice-president have made in the past 2.5 years.

(And now I'm wondering why we didn't hear more about Trinity United Church of Christ and its racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright until after the last presidential election. Where was "Rolling Stone" in 2007?)

Finally, does any sane American really fear the election of a "grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy" person? Does "Rolling Stone" really think we're stupid enough to elect someone of that ilk? If so, the magazine is vastly underestimating the viability of our democratic republic. If not, why even write the article?

But before you go touting the viability of our democratic Republic let's remember for a minute that Arnold Swarzenager is a governor and so was Jesse Ventura, and one of our states voted in a dead person.

Bachmann did very well in the Republican debate a couple weeks back. As someone who had never really seen her speak at length, I emerged with a higher opinion of her and her viability.

She's way way too religious for my liking, and I could give two shits about gay marriage, but on a lot of the issues she's most passionate about, I am right with her. Repeal of Dodd/Frank, health care, domestic drilling, tax policy ... I am right with her. She's nowhere near as bat-shit crazy as that piece makes her out to be. She's actually very smart. Religious nut. But smart.

End of the day though, the fact someone this far into the religious right is even being talked about as a contender tells you all you need to know about the Republican field of contenders.

Gonna be very hard for any of them to beat Obama.

Only chance the Repubs have is if the economy continues to suck as bad as it has, which I firmly believe will be the case. Jobs and housing gotta lead us past this rut in the "recovery" we're stuck in, and neither are getting any better for several years.

Worse off the economy is, better the Repubs chances.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

To be clear I really dont fall into a clear category, but if you had a scale and I laid my beliefs out in left/right style I'm fairly certain I'd fall clearly to the right.

But religious nuts really frighten me, unfortunately they are more passionate. Point being I really dont care so much how many platform points we agree on (Swerb)(how often are those lies or empty promises anyways), the religious part of her is simply a deal breaker. An its getting to that time in my life where I see my personal apathy as a part of this broken system we find ourselves in.

She's the same person who thought the battles of Lexington and Concord took place in New Hampshire.

She claimed Obama's trip to India was costing tax payers $200 million A DAY. Which was a complete lie.

She said the "Hoot/Smalley act" (in reality it was the Smoot/Hawley act) was signed under Dem FDR, but once again in the reality it was under Hoover, and both congressmen were also Republicans. But in her dumb history revsionist mind it was FDR who signed it and created a recession that turned into the Great Depression.

She believes that CO2 is "a natural product of nature" (which is true to some extent, but the debate was on CO2 emissions from man made sources) and not harmful at all....... well maybe she would like to try to breath it.

She claimed the last Swine Flu outbreak was Democrat's doing by saying the last time it happened was under another Democratic POTUS in Jimmy Carter, but it was really Gerald Ford.

She advocated a McCarthy like investigation into if members of congress are "anti American"..... just think about that for a second.

She thinks the US Census is a bad thing. But in reality it effects budgets, representation, services, planning and development for communties all over the country.

And the absolute gem of the bunch: Getting owned by Anderson effin Cooper on not knowing shit about history.

But at least she didn't parade around the country on a "non publicity seeking tour" in a bus with the Declaration Of Independence scrawled on the side and her signature over top of it.

It's ok though, they'll just cut taxes on people who don't need tax cuts and in return they'll create the job growth that we saw under Brainless II. When everyone was employed and there were chocolate rivers and gum drop rainbows.

It doesn't matter, none of those folks are getting elected. And they shouldn't because Obama got Osama and he "kept us safe" which the Republicans loved to cluck about under Bush....... but you can't count 9/11 because he was only on the job for 9 fucking months.

The debates will be fun though, hearing about Romeny and his Communist RomeyCare, Newt's whoring around with women who were not his wife, Palin's folksey nonsense about shooting bears and good 'ol cardboard Pawlenty.

She's the same person who thought the battles of Lexington and Concord took place in New Hampshire.

She claimed Obama's trip to India was costing tax payers $200 million A DAY. Which was a complete lie.

She said the "Hoot/Smalley act" (in reality it was the Smoot/Hawley act) was signed under Dem FDR, but once again in the reality it was under Hoover, and both congressmen were also Republicans. But in her dumb history revsionist mind it was FDR who signed it and created a recession that turned into the Great Depression.

She believes that CO2 is "a natural product of nature" (which is true to some extent, but the debate was on CO2 emissions from man made sources) and not harmful at all....... well maybe she would like to try to breath it.

She claimed the last Swine Flu outbreak was Democrat's doing by saying the last time it happened was under another Democratic POTUS in Jimmy Carter, but it was really Gerald Ford.

She advocated a McCarthy like investigation into if members of congress are "anti American"..... just think about that for a second.

She thinks the US Census is a bad thing. But in reality it effects budgets, representation, services, planning and development for communties all over the country.

And the absolute gem of the bunch: Getting owned by Anderson effin Cooper on not knowing shit about history.

But at least she didn't parade around the country on a "non publicity seeking tour" in a bus with the Declaration Of Independence scrawled on the side and her signature over top of it.

It's ok though, they'll just cut taxes on people who don't need tax cuts and in return they'll create the job growth that we saw under Brainless II. When everyone was employed and there were chocolate rivers and gum drop rainbows.

It doesn't matter, none of those folks are getting elected. And they shouldn't because Obama got Osama and he "kept us safe" which the Republicans loved to cluck about under Bush....... but you can't count 9/11 because he was only on the job for 9 fucking months.

The debates will be fun though, hearing about Romeny and his Communist RomeyCare, Newt's whoring around with women who were not his wife, Palin's folksey nonsense about shooting bears and good 'ol cardboard Pawlenty.

Yeeeeehaaaaaww, fuckos.

So, you think Obama knows all that shlT?.....

Fuckn-aye, the ignorant fucking asstool can't even remember that he awarded the fucking Medal of Honor to a dead man, not a live one

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

Mmmmmmmmm I'm pretty sure Obama knows what state the battles of Lexington and Concord took place. Most smart people know this...... Shit, most 4th graders know that.

Dude, she said this shit in PUBLIC. The "Hoot/Smalley" stuff she said on the floor of the Congress, and it was TOTALY WRONG. If you claim FDR signed the bill, shouldn't she do the minimal effort of at least googling it? How can you claim FDR is the bad guy when it was the goddamn POTUS before him? it's either pure laziness or stupidity.

It ain't even about Obama. It's about this woman making absolute false statements (in public, once again) with no concern if the shit coming out of her mouth has any basis in reality or the truth.

It's like the ole saying "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

I could post a list of all the stupid things Obama and Biden have done and said that would dwarf that list. On the economy alone, the Obama list would be long and much more comical.

None of these people know shit about shit. And if you're waiting for a President that knows about CO2 emissions, the Hoot/Smalley act, and the battle of Lexington and Concord ... you're going to be waiting a long fucking time. Even worse for you if that's your criteria for judging Presidential candidates.

Me personally, I vote for people who I tend to agree with most on the issues most important to me, and then hope they can surround themselves with people that can actually execute some of that shit.

And listen, I'm not saying Bachmann is a viable Presidential candidate. Just trying to interject some rationale into a post featuring a one sided hack job Rolling Stone piece on her, as her performance in the last debate has at least temporarily put her in the mix as being potentially viable.

And lets not forget ... the current President didn't exactly have a resume worthy of a President either. Any day of the week I would choose the resume of a woman who has raised 5 children of her own, 23 foster children, worked as a tax attorney for the IRS, managed her own counseling practice, and has spent 6 years in the Minnesota Senate and 6 years in the House of Representatives over a guy that was a community planner and spent a couple years as a senator.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

Swerb, all im sayin' is if you're gonna say something in public that can be googled in 5 seconds, make sure what you're saying is right.

If someone got up and said "The battle of Gettysburg was fought in Kentucky", you would probably think they're a moron, no?

FTR I didn't even read the damn RS article, because of course it's going to be a hit piece. But that ain't what i'm arguing.

And what does how many children she had in her foster care have to do with being POTUS?

edit;

[Even worse for you if that's your criteria for judging Presidential candidates.

Yes it is part of it, knowing what they hell you're talking about, especially when it comes to history. If you get up in congress and cite certain bills and legislation (which gives her a huge headstart over Palin), you should have your facts straight.

Just like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

And fuck yeah Obama and Biden have said dumb shit (Biden for sure, i'm not really a fan of his anyhow). But i'd bet alot of it is policy, which people can argue till they're blue in the face.

It'll be interesting to see the debates, because they're going to be vicious, i'll roll back around around football season when this shit is really starting to heat up, and the front runners should be starting to emerge.

You guys have a great summer and don't do anything I wouldn't do..... unless it's crack, you guys should do crack. it's supposed to be bunches of fun.

Well i'm getting ready to book a flight for the wife and I to head to Waikiki for July 22nd, and my brother is getting hitched July 2nd, just alot of stuff going on between family and work. I'm just gonna take a break for a bit.

Oh and just for shits and giggles here the author of the Bachmann article Matt Taibbi talking to the walking corpse of Don Imus about the article. I'm a big fan of Taibbi, his books and articles are great, but he's obviously leftist. His stuff on the bailouts is fantastic.

I guess I should've clicked on the fuckin link, but I have no doubt it's still a hit piece, probably funny as shit though.

To be clear I really dont fall into a clear category, but if you had a scale and I laid my beliefs out in left/right style I'm fairly certain I'd fall clearly to the right.

But religious nuts really frighten me, unfortunately they are more passionate. Point being I really dont care so much how many platform points we agree on (Swerb)(how often are those lies or empty promises anyways), the religious part of her is simply a deal breaker. An its getting to that time in my life where I see my personal apathy as a part of this broken system we find ourselves in.

^This. I'm Arch-Conservative on fiscal and social issues, but I have a MAJOR Libertarian influence on my social views. Marriage, to me its man and woman, but I'm not stopping a movement or going crazy if gays can marry. I don't hate blacks or the poor, but I don't have guilt about slavery or the socio-economics status of Joe Blow.

However like you when I see someone running for office on faith the red flags go up. It could be a religious zealot or an eco-nazi. I am very fearful of people whose eyes are a bit too wide open.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

To be clear I really dont fall into a clear category, but if you had a scale and I laid my beliefs out in left/right style I'm fairly certain I'd fall clearly to the right.

But religious nuts really frighten me, unfortunately they are more passionate. Point being I really dont care so much how many platform points we agree on (Swerb)(how often are those lies or empty promises anyways), the religious part of her is simply a deal breaker. An its getting to that time in my life where I see my personal apathy as a part of this broken system we find ourselves in.

^This. I'm Arch-Conservative on fiscal and social issues, but I have a MAJOR Libertarian influence on my social views. Marriage, to me its man and woman, but I'm not stopping a movement or going crazy if gays can marry. I don't hate blacks or the poor, but I don't have guilt about slavery or the socio-economics status of Joe Blow.

However like you when I see someone running for office on faith the red flags go up. It could be a religious zealot or an eco-nazi. I am very fearful of people whose eyes are a bit too wide open.

Exactly. If I feel they could be swayed by religion, I'm out. Deal breaker for LP. Now, if they just refer to religion in that phony political way just to pacify the party, then I'm ok.

The gays, well, they don't give a shit that LP is straight, and LP doesn't give a shit they're gay. None of my business. Get married, have a party. I do think there are quite a few bigger fish to fry, however, if I were gay I probably wouldn't think that way. What I'm sayin' is that I'm for gay marriage, but if it's a major part of your platform, you might be leavin' some important issues out.

Agree Lead. Social issues are just usually irrationally subjective. Grey all around, seldom right/wrong or black/white. IMO in those cases you can have a personal belief system, but to push that onto others is just plain ignorant. Bachmann may have all the right answers mathematically for the economy, but she losses my vote with the red-eyed zealotry on social issues.

Quick example. In my mind, "I pray for those people/thing." or "I prayed for guidence." Is far different then, "God will show me what's right." or "I believe God chose me for this..."

The former seem to be looking for calm to make the right decision. The latter two being arrogant; as if to absolve one of responsibility/reality. Said it elsewhere, in this, or another forum, but I'm just damn sick of activists. (All stripes, all parties.)

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

The way people's biases play out always amuses me. If Obama or Bachmann had the exact same background and experience they have now, but flipped their policies, the boring talking points would flip with them. Republicans would suddenly celebrate Obama's Washington "outsider" status (only 2 years in the Senate is a GOOD thing!) and community work (he was out there with the people!), and Harvard law background (he's smart!), and hey, look what a great family man he is. His daughters haven't been arrested for underage drinking yet!The Dems would take over the role of pointing out Bachmann's valuable years of service in the House (ignoring the earlier point in this thread about how ANYONE can get elected), and her work as an IRS tax attorney (not elitist or evil at all!), and her 95 foster kids as a metaphor for the greater American population. Her gaffes would become "cute" like Joe Biden's.

Ugh. It just gets tiresome. I'm not a huge Obama fan, but again, his proposed tax hike on rich people that people hate so much... there is a historical precedent here. This is NOT uncharted territory.

^The bias you talk about is inconsequential. Those few characteristics aren't even partisan, so what exactly is the point? Obama can't be a Republican because his policies are wayyyyy to the left of even the most liberal Republican.

Great, their is a historical context for high rates. What was the total tax burden in 1950? What was the gas tax, cable tv tax, E-Check, cell phone tax, License Fee, blah blah blah.

I'm glad your above the fray.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:Agree Lead. Social issues are just usually irrationally subjective. Grey all around, seldom right/wrong or black/white. IMO in those cases you can have a personal belief system, but to push that onto others is just plain ignorant.

Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever?

Social conservatives' sole reason for existing is to give our grandchildren something to be ashamed of. Always.

Orenthal wrote:^The bias you talk about is inconsequential. Those few characteristics aren't even partisan, so what exactly is the point? Obama can't be a Republican because his policies are wayyyyy to the left of even the most liberal Republican.

The fact that those characteristics aren't partisan IS the point. Ideological biases lead people to make irrational, conflicting judgments about candidates' personal backgrounds and qualifications. Both sides are equally guilty of this (the mirrored, hypocritical attacks on both Palin and Obama for lack of experience being a good example). I was obviously not suggesting Obama could actually be a Republican. It's called a hypothetical. Again, the premise was that Bachmann and Obama switched policies, like one of those bad body-switching movies from the '80s. ... ...And the statistics in that link included a comparison of "total tax burden" from the Reagan era to today (with the percentage being several points higher then than now).

Bachmann is nuts. And I say this as someone who has been following Bachmann (via Ed Brayton) for years: this is a woman whose definition of reality is not the same as everyone else's.

I can understand a flub here and there. People misspeak, especially people who give countless public addresses (that are now documented on youtube within minutes). Obama says 57 states, Bachmann gets the wrong states for Lexington and Concord (although she did this two nights in a row, and someone should have corrected her). That shit happens.

The difference between misspeaking and being wrong or ignorant. Repeatedly. And willfully. Bachmann sees a topic and plays reverse Mad Libs, she slaps the key words in and just fills the rest of the sentence with conservative-sounding word salad.

Social conservatives' sole reason for existing is to give our grandchildren something to be ashamed of. Always.

IMO, your statement is laughable on its face, but it's even more bizarre to use a quotation from a racist Democrat to make it. Your facile equation of social conservatism with racism is objectionable enough as it is.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Social issues are never "irrationally subjective." Maybe they can appear that way realtime to someone trying to ignore the ugly side of whatever political group they support, but they're not irrationally subjective. And with the added clarity of hindsight, yesterday's social conservatives will always be today's kooks. (For some of us, they already are.)

Social issues are never "irrationally subjective." Maybe they can appear that way realtime to someone trying to ignore the ugly side of whatever political group they support, but they're not irrationally subjective. And with the added clarity of hindsight, yesterday's social conservatives will always be today's kooks. (For some of us, they already are.)

I don't know. Abortion is a social issue, and I don't see either side as 100% on point. Both sides arguments tending to get into the irrational. Cloning another. I understand your point on slavery, probably even gay marriage, given the concept of marriage is nothing more then a human creation.

Perhaps usually should be replaced with sometimes? Either way I didn't say always or never.

swerb wrote: End of the day though, the fact someone this far into the religious right is even being talked about as a contender tells you all you need to know about the Republican field of contenders.

Indeed. 2012 just might be the final nail in the coffin of the GOP. It is impossible to fathom that at this (albeit early) stage the "best" candidiate is some religous whack job. The entire party leadership should be recalled and sent to clean up the reactor melt down in Japan.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

Eh, I'd actually parse out religious conservatives from social conservatives, even though there's a whole lot of overlap there. Purely socially conservative stances for me would pretty much be limited to anything that's hostile to minorities. There are plenty of religious conservative issues (mostly those that are hostile to science rather than minorities) that I think share the same target demographic--basically, ignorant people--but otherwise don't have much in common.

Wanting to teach intelligent design in science class, for example. This is just prima facie dumb. But we're not going to advance socially to a place where more people recognize it as dumb; it's just as dumb today as it will ever be.

And granted, while there's some overlap with the above, abortion is more complicated and different.

HoodooMan wrote:Social issues are never "irrationally subjective." Maybe they can appear that way realtime to someone trying to ignore the ugly side of whatever political group they support, but they're not irrationally subjective. And with the added clarity of hindsight, yesterday's social conservatives will always be today's kooks. (For some of us, they already are.)

The federal government doesn't have the right or the responsibility to involve itself in any "social" issues, period. Congress should not be legislating individual choices (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), nor should it be funding them in any way, shape or form. Our federal legislators have to learn to keep their cotton-pickin' noses out of individual choice and use our tax money to provide for the common defense and the general welfare, and to regulate international commerce (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8). Not once in that entire document is the word "social" mentioned.

If that 224-year-old philosophy makes me a kook, I accept the mantle with pride.

I'd agree with most of the above, but would add that science (global warming, eugenics, overpopulation) isn't absent of faith, and it seems like the ignorant usually follow blindly based on that faith. I think hard science vs. religion isn't as clear as it once was, each bending towards the other.

Is there anything negative about being socially liberal? Only asking, because it would seem that eugenics would fit into the progressive mindset, but was also inherently racist. The historical perspective is interesting, because if something socially liberal is never enacted, no one cares. As opposed to, abolition, a liberal social issue that was more virtious and won out.

On another forum I wrote that the more virtious position usually wins out over time, but was then attacked by tOC in a Socratic debate about "virtue". The asshole.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:I'd agree with most of the above, but would add that science (global warming, eugenics, overpopulation) isn't absent of faith, and it seems like the ignorant usually follow blindly based on that faith. I think hard science vs. religion isn't as clear as it once was, each bending towards the other.

I don't know, OJ. I think supporting evidence (beyond "Welp, we got this really old book, see...") & testability combine to make for a pretty clear distinction.

Where our blind & ignorant take it from there seems to me like a separate issue.

^Agree in theory, and over time the same junk science will be weeded out.

So long story just seems more ignorant and stupid people fly the banner of religion. BTW there is some decent stuff in that really old book, but how many people are able to parse? Science can't teach you how to be just. I learned that from Plato btw.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

mattvan1 wrote:Indeed. 2012 just might be the final nail in the coffin of the GOP.

Yeah...they might just cease to exist as a party after next year, such is the wild popularity of Obama policies in this country.

With Obama's approval ratings cratering in the low-40's, strong majorities favoring the repeal of his signature legislation, the economy in the shitter, foreign policy in shambles, his far-left base disenchanted with him, and far more voters identifying as conservatives than as liberals, it's amazing the Republican Party still even plans to contest the coming election. What are we now, seven months removed from the historic electoral beatdown of the congressional Democrats, the most recent opportunity the voters had to conduct a referendum on Obamaism?

Yes, it's a long time till Election Day, but one has to wonder what planet you are inhabiting here.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

mattvan1 wrote:Indeed. 2012 just might be the final nail in the coffin of the GOP.

Yeah...they might just cease to exist as a party after next year, such is the wild popularity of Obama policies in this country.

With Obama's approval ratings cratering in the low-40's, strong majorities favoring the repeal of his signature legislation, the economy in the shitter, foreign policy in shambles, his far-left base disenchanted with him, and far more voters identifying as conservatives than as liberals, it's amazing the Republican Party still even plans to contest the coming election. What are we now, seven months removed from the historic electoral beatdown of the congressional Democrats, the most recent opportunity the voters had to conduct a referendum on Obamaism?

Yes, it's a long time till Election Day, but one has to wonder what planet you are inhabiting here.

But that's just it Dan, and I think maybe that's what Mattvan is alluding to. Let's assume that everything you wrote there is accurate. All of it is true.

And now given all that the GOP still doesn't have someone who is a good enough candidate to beat him? I mean, this Bachmann goofball is a legit candidate? Seriously?

It kind of speaks to the current state of the GOP.

That's not to say that a good candidate won't emerge. One probably will. But when Michelle Bachmann is a real candidate...what the fuck?

And really, at the end of the day, motherscratcher's post perfectly encapsulates all the key points in this thread. All facts.

1. Democrats were proven to be vulnerable in the midterms and America every day becomes more disenchanted with their economic policies/solutions. It will be even worse for them once unemployment is still well over 9.0% in summer of next year, 3.5 years after Obama started implementing policy. Housing, the economy, and the employment situation ... none of them are getting better any time soon and could get worse.

2. Republicans, while there is still time, are not well positioned to take advantage of this, with all of the front runners to take on Obama being very flawed. Obama is likable and smooth enough to out politic and out talk a weak Repub candidate, even though he's been a disaster on the economy/jobs and the economy/jobs will be the #1 issue next fall.

3. If Bachmann is the candidate, the Repubs really effed. I don't even think she's viable as a VP candidate because Obama and his team will wisely use "do you wanna really be one heartbeat away from this religious nut being CIC?"

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

Guys, didn't we have this type of conversation a few years back, when the public opinion of Bush was so low...

"Christ, if the Dems can't get someone in there now....

Now it's reversed. Guess what it will be in four years?

The party system is broken. Period.

If you look at the reasons parties were instituted in this country and compare those benefits to the havoc currently caused the country by them now it's just ridiculous.

By the way, one issue is that it has robbed us of viable candidates. Looking for one? Doesn't exist. For the thousanth time - the greatest candidate - custom made for the US Presidency, with the cure for cancer, the recipe for world peace, an enormous amount of business acumen, as honest, loyal and selfless as the day is long....this guy would step up to the podium - and half the people would think he's an asshole.

leadpipe wrote:Guys, didn't we have this type of conversation a few years back, when the public opinion of Bush was so low...

"Christ, if the Dems can't get someone in there now....

Now it's reversed. Guess what it will be in four years?

The party system is broken. Period.

If you look at the reasons parties were instituted in this country and compare those benefits to the havoc currently caused the country by them now it's just ridiculous.

By the way, one issue is that it has robbed us of viable candidates. Looking for one? Doesn't exist. For the thousanth time - the greatest candidate - custom made for the US Presidency, with the cure for cancer, the recipe for world peace, an enormous amount of business acumen, as honest, loyal and selfless as the day is long....this guy would step up to the podium - and half the people would think he's an asshole.

Spot on. Although that guy likely wouldn't do the soul-selling required to finance a campaign in the first place.

leadpipe wrote:Guys, didn't we have this type of conversation a few years back, when the public opinion of Bush was so low...

"Christ, if the Dems can't get someone in there now....

Now it's reversed. Guess what it will be in four years?

The party system is broken. Period.

If you look at the reasons parties were instituted in this country and compare those benefits to the havoc currently caused the country by them now it's just ridiculous.

By the way, one issue is that it has robbed us of viable candidates. Looking for one? Doesn't exist. For the thousanth time - the greatest candidate - custom made for the US Presidency, with the cure for cancer, the recipe for world peace, an enormous amount of business acumen, as honest, loyal and selfless as the day is long....this guy would step up to the podium - and half the people would think he's an asshole.

Spot on. Although that guy likely wouldn't do the soul-selling required to finance a campaign in the first place.

Couldn't agree more. I've laid it out in here and in forums at other places before. My radical plan to have all campaigns financed through taxpayer funds, and pay politicians like sports stars. All the campaign finance shenanigans and many of the kickbacks and vote buying would go away.

If you're a truly talented private sector person, you'd have to be a moron to work for what these politicians make.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns